Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!rupp@cod.nosc.mil
From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier discussion
Message-ID: <3495@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 89 14:51:32 GMT
References: <3451@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com


From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp)

In article <3451@cbnews.ATT.COM> sasbrb@sas (Brendan Bailey) writes:
  >
  >     It is agreed that we wouldn't be putting "all our eggs in one basket",
  >but wouldn't each small carrier STILL need a carrier task force of equal size
  >to that of a large carrier?  It would. 

Well, maybe not.  Why couldn't two 15,000-20,000 ton carriers, each
carrying 20-25 high-performance VSTOL planes (yes, I know that such a
beast doesn't yet exist) operate with a single battle group.  So maybe
you add a frigate or two, but why duplicate the whole group just because
you have split your air assets between two hulls (and therefore two
targets)?  Another advantage would be that if the Atlantic group is on
station off Europe, and crises developed both in Norway AND South
America, it  would be possible to detach one carrier and three or four
escorts to go south while the other carrier with the remaining three or
four escorts would stay put.

For that matter, why not build some really cheap escort carriers similar
to the converted merchant ships used in WWII.  Put a few Harriers,
helos, whatever, on them, and they would be useful in third world scenarios 
and not cost much.  Perhaps the amphibious assault ships (Iwo Jima?) the
navy now has qualifies for that.  Didn't the RN operate a few harriers
off a container ship in a pinch?

Bill
-------------------------------------
As always, these are my opinions only
-------------------------------------